Scientific Online Resource System

Scripta Scientifica Medicinae Dentalis

Long-term follow-up of implants with reduced length.

Stefan Peev, Elitsa Sabeva, Angela Gusiyska, Tihomir Georgiev, Tsvetan Tonchev

Abstract


Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess the reduced length implants as an alternative of conventional length implants in combination with bone augmentation. The following criteria were observed: survival rate, marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing.

Material and Methods: This study included 186 Straumann Standard Plus implants with dimensions: length of 6 mm and diameter of 4.8 mm. The implants were loaded with non-removable crowns or bridges at least 10 weeks after the implant placement. Depending on the type of the prosthetic option the distribution of the implants was as follows: 83 implants were co-abutments to one more implant with conventional length (8-14 mm); 67 implants were co-abutments to more than one implant with conventional length, 33 implants were loaded with single crowns.

Results: The mean period of observation was 5.59 years. The mean marginal bone resorption was 0,224mm. In 12.4% from the cases was registered BOP (bleeding on probing). A correlation was found between the BOP and mean marginal bone resorption. No correlation was found between the values of marginal bone resorption and the type of the prosthetics. The survival rate of the implants in the observation period was 99.5%.

Conclusion: Š¢reatment by short implants is a reliable alternative to implants with conventional length with combination of bone grafting procedures. It is less invasive, cost effective and consumes less treatment time.


Keywords

implants with reduced length; short implants

Full Text


References

Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter r on survival rates. Clin Oral Imp Res. 2006;17(Suppl. 2):35-51.

Esposito M, Cannizzaro G, Soardi E, Pistilli R, Piattelli M, Corvino V, Felice P. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm-long, 4 mm-wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. Preliminary results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology. 2012;5:19-33.

Gulje F, Abrahamsson I, Chen S, Stanford C, Zadeh H, Palmer R. Implants of 6 mm vs. 11 mm lengths in the posterior maxilla and mandible: a 1-year multi center randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2013;24:1325-31.

Thoma DS, Haas R, Tutak M, Garcia A, Schincaglia GP, Hammerle CHF. Randomized controlled multicenter study comparing short dental implants (6 mm) versus longer dental

implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures. Part 1:demographics and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year of loading. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2015;42:72-80.

Pistilli R, Felice P, Cannizzaro G, Piatelli M, Corvino V, Barausse C, Buti J, Soardi E, Esposito M. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6 mm long 4 mm wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year post-loading results from a pilot randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology. 2013;6:359-72.

Pistilli R, Felice P, Piattelli M, Gessaroli M, Soardi E, Barausse C, Buti J, Corvino V. Posterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 x 5 mm implants with a novel nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. One-year results from a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology. 2013;6:343-57.

Atieh MA, Zadeh H, Stanford CM, Cooper LF. Survival of short dental implants for treatment of posterior partial edentulism: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1323-31.

Kotsovilis et al A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of implant length on the survival of rough-surface dental implants. J Periodontol. 2009 Nov;80(11):1700-18.

Hentschel A, Herrmann J, Glauche I, Vollmer A, Schlegel KA, Lutz R. Survival and patient satisfaction of short implants during the first two years of function: a retrospective cohort study with 694 implants in 416 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jun 10. doi: 10.1111/clr.12626. [Epub ahead of print]

Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Husler J, Hammerle CHF, Jung RE. EAO Supplement Working Group 4 - EAO CC 2015 Short implants versus sinus lifting with longer implants to restore the posterior maxilla: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 11:154-69.

Srinivasan M, Vazquez L, Rieder P, Moraguez O, Bernard JP, Belser UC. Survival rates of short (6 mm) micro-rough surface implants: a review of literature and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 May;25(5):539-45.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14748/ssmd.v1i2.1418

Refbacks

About The Authors

Stefan Peev
Medical University of Varna Faculty of Dental Medicine Department of Periodontology and Dental Implantology
Bulgaria

Elitsa Sabeva

Medical University of Varna Faculty of Dental Medicine Department of Periodontology and Dental Implantology

Angela Gusiyska

Tihomir Georgiev

Medical University of Varna Faculty of Dental Medicine Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Special Imaging Diagnostics

Tsvetan Tonchev

Medical University of Varna Faculty of Dental Medicine Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Special Imaging Diagnostics

Font Size


|